Save-A-Boat - The Forum for Plastic Classic Rebuilds!

OK, this is a bit off topic, but I noticed something on Figment that I'll need to address shortly.

On the small opening portlights, it appears as though many of the srewholes aren't really holes. They share an edge with the window hole. Did you do any repairs prior to rebedding the portlights? Or does it not really matter?

I thought about this problem on mine a while back when I removed the portlights and I sort of decided that it isn't significant as the screws would still draw the frames tight and plenty of sealant should do what the screws won't be able to. Of course, this may be the lazy man's way...

That's the way its designed. At least, all 36 such screw "holes" are like that on Dasein. Works just fine.

When you say designed, do you mean an ordered and consistent construction methodology? Each step carefully executed according to precise plans and consistent standards? Where's the fun in that?

Jason,

Your ports appear to be different from those in some of the boats, from the picture you posted. The ports in many of the boats (most, perhaps) feature six "ears" on the port casting that fit through corresponding slots in the cabin trunk. The screws in this case don't penetrate the fiberglass at all and only function to pull the port tightly into the opening against the exterior flange.



Your ports seem to screw right through the fiberglass with only four screws, but the screws' function is still only to pull the interior and exterior pieces of the port tightly together into the cabin, so it doesn't matter if the screw holes are conjoined with the port opening. What does matter is that the screws are able to draw the two parts tightly in, sandwiching the opening between them.

No changes or repairs are necessary. Reinstall as original.

Here is another illogical example of differences between Triton models. I knew the early early boats had completely different forward ports, generally, but #100 had the 6-ear style, same as #381 and #668. Once again, there is no definite hull number boundary between these arbitrary changes.

More arbitrary Triton differences:

Mike, I noticed that your coaming blocks seem to attach about twice as far forward on the cabin trunk as mine do (and did).

Of course, I can't find a picture to illustrate (not that it matters), but it seems to be mostly the earliest boats that brought them further forward.

Just a random observation!

I think it's fantastic that my boat is illogically constructed. I've known for a bit that mine has had some differences from other Tritons; it doesn't fit neatly into an "earlier" or "later" model category. In fact, some things hint that the category divisions were realized during the construction of my boat. I bet 218 was halfway done and Ev Pearson stood back and said, "You know what? I bet it would be, like, totally cool if.......... ya know what I'm sayin'?" And they changed a few construction methods right there. Some inconsistencies:

-Masthead rig (East Coast)
-Top-loading cockpit lockers (fiberglass)
-No headliner
-Bronze framed large windows
-Winch blocks easily as far forwards as Figments (a turn on the winch hits a stanchion. Brilliant!)
-some of the smaller windows have ears, some don't.

Figment,

Does the core extend all the way back to the transom on the side decks? I have not strained my neck with the side lockers yet to find out. I know the center of the lazerette has plywood stringers for support. If it does cover the entire side deck, did you replace the core all the way aft?

Also, did you replace the core on the upper decks as well? I know that the concern with early hulls like ours is that "long grain" balsa planks were used instead of end grain balsa sheets.

Thanks for posting the picture.

Joe

My sidedeck coring ended about even with the end of the cabin trunk, plus a couple inches perhaps.

Same here. Side deck coring ended (tapered-out, actually) a few inches aft of the end of the cabin. The side decks outboard of the cockpit coamings are only 7 inches wide at most, which is easily spanned by the uncored layup.

I only recently discovered that the upper coachroof is a cored assembly, so I didn't touch this area. The lower coachroof (where the mast is stepped) had good core at the outer portions, so I think it would be fair to say that I recored 2/3 of this lower coachroof. In retrospect, this was somewhat stupid of me. The vast majority of time spent on this project is in the re-fairing process, and this process would have been no more arduous had I just replaced ALL of the core. Here's a pic from late January that tells the tale fairly well....

Early coamings extend farther than later coamings?!!!
Gah! Will these silly differences never end?

Actually, I did notice that your coamings were different when we visited last year, but I figured it was just something you did when you rebuilt to accommodate the dodger, etc.

Pulling the coamings forward looked great on the drawings, and I'm one who can understand how one falls in love with one's drawings. In the reality of the boat, however, it creates something of a silly condition where we have this 2"x3"x8" impossible-to-clean-or-varnish pocket between the coaming and the cabin side, so I can easily see why they made this change back in the day.

Ready for the funny part? Plastic soda/water bottles wedge into this nook quite happily. Modern beverage technology has finally caught up to Alberg's design genius!! ;)

Figment

The topmost coachroof has no core.

Thanks for the reply. My upper coachroof does have a core. It seems strange to me that there would be so many variances in these boats over such a short period of time.

Can you recommend the quantity of 2' X 4' balsa sheets one would need to do the lower decks. For that matter, any other comments on supply quantities for this job would also be appreciated.

Is your temporary boat shed from the Stimson Marine plans?

I'm sure it is a great feeling ot have solid decks again.

Joe

The quick answer is "a lot less than I thought". When I opened the box for Britton a couple of weeks ago, I was actually pretty alarmed to see how much I had left. Certainly more than I'll need to stiffen the cockpit in the next go-round.

When I get to the boat tomorrow, I'll count the sheets I have left and do the math to give you an actual answer.

oh, and yes the shed is a Stimson Shed. If you build one, build it on kneewalls of at least 36" height. I did 24" and I frequently wish for that extra foot of overhead.

jhenson wrote:It seems strange to me that there would be so many variances in these boats over such a short period of time.

It's almost as if the people actually building the boats on the shop floor had little or no direction, and made do with what was at hand--materials, design, engineering...

The number of large and small differences between even adjacent hull numbers can be truly interesting...and mind boggling as we struggle to understand why! All production boats have differences between individual boats, but the Triton takes the cake.

I think I remember the "drink wedge" feature when sailing on Kaynee (#30) a couple years ago. She also has the longer coamings.

jhenson wrote: Can you recommend the quantity of 2' X 4' balsa sheets one would need to do the lower decks. For that matter, any other comments on supply quantities for this job would also be appreciated.

hmmmmm. I can't seem to find my receipt from the core order, so I can't say for certain how many sheets I had when I started, but based on the space left in the box, I'd guess it at 6 2x4 sheets.

Other supply quantities....
40 yards of 4" biax tape. I have 5 yards or so left over.
Easily 8 gallons of epoxy.
Two 5quart tubs of silica thickener, three tubs of microballoons.
Two rolls of longboard paper.
Three 50-count boxes of 80grit discs

Adjust all of the above downward 10% or so if you're only doing the main deck. Also adjust as necessary to reflect the condition of your deck. Mine was in remarkably poor shape, and I had to do some "reconstructive" work to the bottom skins.

Figment,

Thanks very much for taking the time to send that information. This should give me a much needed idea of where to begin when ordering these materials.

Joe

What was the weight of the biax tape used and how many laminations were required to build it to the deck skin thickness? Could you recommend a good source of mail order supply on this stuff, or did you acquire it all as a walk-up customer?

Joe

I used 17 oz. tape. I only used one layer, and even this was overkill, I think.
Except for the balsa core, all of my materials came from Jamestown Distributors www.jamestowndistributors.com 800 423 0030.
I'll try to scratch my brain and remember where I got the balsa. I remember that buying less-than-a-boatload was a huge hassle, though.

jhenson wrote:how many laminations were required to build it to the deck skin thickness?

Joe,

Remember that you need not taper the top skin back through its full thickness; that is unnecessary when we're talking about taping deck panels back in place.

Therefore, when you tab the seams back together, you only need a couple layers or so. When you grind the tapers, just go deep enough to accommodate the thickness of a couple layers (1/8" or so), or however many layers of the material you ultimately choose.

You can get small quantities of balsa from Defender, among other places.

Click here for a direct link to the 3/8" Contourkore (balsa).

I should modify the above to note that I didn't do a great lot of price-shopping for most of my materials. There may very well be places that offer better prices than JD. I ordered from them because they're a known entity to me, and because they're close enough that I can pay the "ground" rate for UPS and still have it at my door the next day.
Your experience may vary.

I also think it's fair to note that at least 40% of my epoxy consumption has been in fairing.
Because my decks were SO far gone and had been that way for so long, they were pretty well out-of-fair before the project even began. I didn't really have fair edges leftover to use as guides, so I was really fairing from scratch. Your deck's condition may be different.

Geez, Mike, did the lawyers come down on you?

My experience with Jamestown is that their prices tend to be quite good in the scheme of things, and their service has been good also. One can always point to a cheaper price somewhere, but if you want to work on the boat, it's best to buy materials from a known trusted source rather than waste time to save two dollars somewhere.

Remember: in the end, time will be a scarcer commodity than money in any boat project.

hehe. well, yeah kinda. I'm an officer of my condominium association, and I'd just finished writing an unfriendly letter in that role prior to that post.

Really, though, I did feel compelled to qualify my information. If memory serves, Joe, you're in Virginia, and that's enough of a distance that I think you really ought to hunt around to see if there's a good local source.

Just popped into my head.... Chesapeake Light Craft of Annapolis might be a better source for tape and epoxy products, especially if you're already considering system three or MAS.

While waiting for materials to arrive, I spent some time scraping and sanding bad old paint on the interior of the boat yesterday and I'll be a sonofa...... there IS core in the upper portion of my coachroof! How on earth have I not noticed this until now?

Well, the answer to that question is pretty simple, really.... I didn't notice it because IT'S NOT ROTTEN! Because it didn't sound with a dull THUD like the rest of the decks, I'd just assumed that it had no core. Wonder of wonders.
Posts above edited to reflect this discovery.

I spent some time scraping and sanding bad old paint on the interior of the boat yesterday

Wow, that makes me shudder thinking about grinding interior paint again.

I guess you'll be back doing some more recore in the next couple of weeks. Sounds like you are almost done though. I am starting with my cockpit sole first. I just got a couple of sheets from Defender and I am a couple of days from laying it in the cockpit. I was wondering if there is a preferred side to have up since one side has the binding cloth attached. I'm guessing it doesn't matter, but obviously I don't know.

Joe

I would think that you would put the binding side down in most locations, allowing the core to "flex" to conform to curvature of the deck. I think that would work alot better if the binding were down, no?

Thats a good point.

Here is another question I have? I need to lay up some solid sections for the corners where the scupper drains are (where I'll be adding two Perko cockpit scupper drains). I'll be using 17 oz. biax material to get to the 3/8" core thickness. My experience elsewhere tells me that is somewhere betwee 7-10 laminations. How many of these can I safely build up at time without having excessive heat during curing? How long should I wait to add more material while the stuff is green so I don't have to sand between applications?


Joe

Most deck areas are, for all intents and purposes, flat enough that it really doesn't matter which way you lay the core. I doubt there's enough curve almost anywhere on the decks (except perhaps the coachroofs) where it truly matters.

In general, you apply the binding side so that the blocks of core can conform as needed. On a female mold, for example, this means the scrim generally faces up.

On your scupper drain corners, you can probably do 3 or 4 layers at once, depending on temperature. That's a pretty tight area, and will retain heat, so I probably would stick to three at once.

I would further say that you need not use solid glass here--why not use at least some structural filler, maybe with some glass over the top as a final reinforcement? I used only filler here, but I retained my original scupper openings and reformed new shapes by hand using the filler. In hindsight, I would have redone the scuppers completely from the getgo, which I ended up doing last winter finally.

http://www.triton381.com/projects/resto ... uppers.htm

Generally speaking, you can add more layers to the first part of your laminate once the reaction has cooled and the glass is no longer tacky to the touch--but can still be dented. This translates to several hours, depending on temperature.

Tim,

Would you think it would be ok to use only filler to this thickness?

Here are the cockpit drains of which I guess you are familiar:



The upper flange is about 3 3/4" in diameter with a 2 1/2" hole for the main body of the casting. Rather than buy a hole saw of that diameter (about $40), I was going to lay up a solid piece, mount in on a lathe face plate, turn the holes on the lathe, and adhere it to the deck. Alternatively, I can turn a wooden plug to the two diameters, wax it heavily, and pour filler around it. The plug would then be hammered out from a small hole below.

Once the drains are in place, I plan to use your advice to move the seacocks aft so that the hose can have a gentle bend from the bottom of the drains. When changing hoses down the road, it is my hope to be able to remove the drains so that I can make it easier to replace the hoses by lowering the drain castings onto the hoses (if that makes any sense).

Joe

Here are the cockpit drains of which I guess you are familiar

These look like the ones I saw in Hamilton Marine that have rubber balls in them to keep water from flowing back up through the drain. From looking at your picture, it looks like you could remove the balls if you wanted. Am I correct?

If I am not mistaken, the test for adequate cockpit drains is that if you cover them and fill the cockpit with water, hen uncover them the cockpit should drain in 90 seconds or less. This is for a vessel that might be used offshore where it could be pooped. Are these drains big enough?

Joe,

Those particular drains are quite large. I'm not saying they won't fit, but be sure to confirm their overall size first and make sure they will work as you intend.

With those angled discharges, you might find you had luck crossing the scupper hoses--something that doesn't tend to work that well otherwise in Tritons, as the crosses require loops that hold water and tend to flood the cockpit at rest.

Also, I don't think you'll be able to relocate seacocks much further aft...if anything, they should go forward, if there is any room. You might have meant forward (and I think you actually did).

I almost think it would be better to have the seacocks forward of the engine somewhere, with longer hoses to reach. The clearances beneath the cockpit are just so tight. You wouldn't need to cross the hoses in this particular setup. The question is whether you can find room for the seacocks--and a fair run for the hoses--elsewhere.

Your lathe plan makes sense for boring the holes and countersink for those fittings, given the constraints at hand. You can make up your own solid glass pieces if you want, but you might also consider some of the pre-manufactured laminates, such as those available from McMaster-Carr. I haven't decided which is more cost-effective. Homemade laminate panels made up from scrap material and leftover resin would win, economically, but if you start using fresh materials I start to wonder.

I used the manufactured laminate (1/2" thickness) for backing plates on the Daysailor. It is nice stuff, but a word of warning: it was extremely hard, and very tough on the tools.

JonnyBoats wrote:If I am not mistaken, the test for adequate cockpit drains is that if you cover them and fill the cockpit with water, hen uncover them the cockpit should drain in 90 seconds or less.

You are more or less correct. ABYC H-4.4.9.1 states that...

ABYC H-4.4.9.1 wrote:When filled with water to the fixed sill height and with weathertight hatches sealed to the height of the sill, 75% of the cockpit water volume shall drain in 90 seconds. There shall be no leakage to the interior during the test.

There is also two formulae, one of which is below:

A (min. area of all drains in sq. inches) = 0.385 times the division of Vc (total volume of water that could be contained in the well) divided by the squareroot of the cockpit depth (h), in feet.

A=0.385(Vc/√h)

The Westsail 32 that I cruised on had two of those exact drains (but the bronze ones) in the cockpit sole - forward end (we put them in to replace some chintzier ones).

On that particular boat the cockpit drain hoses were routed out above the waterline, so they didn't have much gradient (barely any), and I always thought they were a tad inadequate. So for that reason we took the balls out for more flow.

I still liked them - the ones that were on there before didn't have grates, so it you dropped something small... it was gone forever.

Not exactly direct information for the Triton, I realize.

FWIW --- Rachel

Tim,

I might be under a misconception here. Do the hoses need to be a certain length or could it be as short as a few inches between the drain outlet and the seacock tailpiece provided they will take whatever bend there is between the two castings. You can tell that I am speaking from ignorance here and really appreciate your insight. I guess I am trying to reverse engineer these by placing the drains into the cutouts, adding reinforced hose and turning them while the are unattatched to the deck to a spot where I can get the tailpiece underneath without a severe bend. Unfortunately, as usual, I am a 1000 miles from the boat as I write this, but I have measured some clearance between the drains and seacocks and thought it would be a matter of placing the seacocks slightly forward (or aft) and lower in the bilge from where the tubes are today. The design of the drains makes it necessary to locate the seacock somewhere other than immediately under them. I would be willing to cut away some of the bridge deck support plywood and engine side bulkheads to accomodate the seacocks.

This is sort of a catch 22 as well. I can't get a real idea of the clearance by testing the hose bend until the drain assembly holes are cut and the castings lowered into the holes, but there is some serious work to get that far. To make it more complex, I don't know the exact location of all the various accessories on the Yanmar since it is not installed.

I sort of hate to cross the hoses since I don't see how well they would drain when the boat is heeled, but if you think they would drain OK that would certainly be the simplest solution.

The drains and seacocks are new and were scrounged for less than $70 for all four though I stlill need thru-hulls and tailpieces. So, I guess if I this won't work, I will at least use the seacocks and sell the drains. I know you know this problem very well, so I really appreciate your judgement on this.

Joe

jhenson wrote:I sort of hate to cross the hoses since I don't see how well they would drain when the boat is heeled, but if you think they would drain OK that would certainly be the simplest solution.

Don't do it. They won't drain. I speak from experience.

Tim wrote: I used the manufactured laminate (1/2" thickness) for backing plates on the Daysailor. It is nice stuff, but a word of warning: it was extremely hard, and very tough on the tools.

Bear in mind that this material is a close cousin to the bullet-resistant panels used around teller's windows at banks and such...

Out of curiosity Tim, did you do the calculations for your Daysailor project to see if it complies with ABYC H-4.4.9.1?

Joe,

When I installed seacocks on my cockpit drains I did what I think you have in mind except I was able to re-use the drain tube from the cockpit sole. I removed the old drain tube that was on the hull and filled the hole in the hull. Then I stuck a hose between the cockpit sole drain tube and seacock and mounted the seacock where it wanted to lay. It works pretty good with an acceptable amount of bend in the hose.

The problem is going to come when the drain hoses need replacement. I am hoping I am sailing in the next world by then but if I have to change the hoses I might be cursing myself. There is very little room to install the hose when the seacock is in place. The space between the seacock tailpiece and the drain tube is only about two inches. The hose section overall is about eight inches. To get around that problem I installed the hose and seacock together and I imagine I will have to remove the seacock to change the hose. In my case I can do it because I didn't glass in the seacocks.

Bringing the drains forward of the engine never occured to me but in hindsight sounds like a pretty good idea. Maybe in twenty years I will go that route.

Something I have filed away for the future (distant future) is the idea of two more drains in the aft end of the cockpit. I think these would drain a few inches above the waterline and wouldn't need seacocks. If cockpit were to become swamped it would drain that much quicker - in my head at least. I haven't seen the hull shape with the boat seriously heeled over so maybe aft drains wouldn't work so well. I am not putting too much thought into it at the moment. Just fulfilling my boast of a Maine cruise this summer is taking all of my brain power.

-Britton

JonnyBoats wrote:Out of curiosity Tim, did you do the calculations for your Daysailor project to see if it complies with ABYC H-4.4.9.1?

Nope. I know that the 1-1/2" drains (two) will be more than sufficient for rainwater and normal amounts of spray. The cockpit is obviously too large to meet calculations intended for offshore boats; it's an inshore boat, to be sure.

Joe,

The hoses can be any length that works. Something else to consider is some of the pre-formed radiator hose, which is what I finally ended up using last year.

If you own the boat for any length of time, you will have to replace the hoses, so it's best if you can come up with a solution that allows you to do that.

To relocate the seacocks, you will likely have to remove some of that bulkhead. You can't go too much more towards centerline, as the seacocks will start to interfere with the transmission, shafting, and exhaust. I highly recommend you know where your engine parts will end up before you place your seacocks!

Moving them forward and down, outboard of the engine, would work if you can make the room there. With no interior in place, you might be able to do this successfully, and then redesign the interior around the new fittings.

I highly recommend you know where your engine parts will end up before you place your seacocks

Very true. I forgot you (Joe) had the engine out. Picking the best spot between the bulkhead, transmission, and in my case, the aftermarket engine exhaust system, becomes a bit of a ballet. I think the backing blocks for my seacocks sit about and inch or two aft of the bulkhead. If I can remember I will take some pictures tomorrow.

If you own the boat for any length of time, you will have to replace the hoses

Don't say that.

Actually I knew the risks but judging by the condition and age of the other hoses in the boat I am thinking I have ten years before I need to start worrying. By then I will have redesigned and rebuilt the rest of the boat and will be bored and need something to do.

And since this thread is (or was) about Figment's deck recore. How is it going and will the boat see water this summer?

-Britton

I know that the 1-1/2" drains (two) will be more than sufficient for rainwater and normal amounts of spray.

How much water could two 1.5 inch drains be expected to pass in 90 seconds?

To ask a related question, if one computes the volume of their cockpit (and thus the number of gallons it can hold), how does one compute the drains required to pass 75 percent of that volume in 90 seconds?

JonnyBoats wrote:To ask a related question, if one computes the volume of their cockpit (and thus the number of gallons it can hold), how does one compute the drains required to pass 75 percent of that volume in 90 seconds?

There is another formula for that calculation:

Dn = 0.7(√(Vc/n√h))

Dn = minimum diameter of each drain, in inches
Vc = total amount of water that can be contained in cockpit with the drains closed, in cubic feet
h = cockpit depth in feet
n = number of drains in cockpit

This stuff makes my head hurt!

We've experienced several various delays, but I do plan to start laying dynel tomorrow.
The answer to the question about the boat seeing water this year or not is a resounding YES, as mandated by the First Mate. could be anywhere from two to six weeks from now I suppose.

If you own the boat for any length of time, you will have to replace the hoses, so it's best if you can come up with a solution that allows you to do that.

This is really the reason I thought I would try a something different than the bronze drains with the tapered edges. The problem, as I understand from reading about it, is that when the drains and seacocks are fixed, one cannot bend the marine reinforced hose onto them because of the inadequate space between the two. What really seems to be needed is to have the ability to remove one of the castings, and obviously the seacock, with the boat in the water, is not a good choice. One thought was to have the bronze tapered drains (like on Glissando) epoxied into a round cutout that was screwed into a flush recess in the deck. The Perko units would be similar in the principal.

Hose replacement would go like this:

-close the seacock (stated here for mentally challenged people like myself)

-cut the old hose in half between the two castings

-remove the screws that hold whatever drain assembly to the deck and lift the drain and old hose out.

-remove the remnants of the old hose from both castings

-install the bottom of the new hose onto the seacock tailpiece

-heavily bed the deck recess with 5200 or equivelent and slide the drain assembly onto the hose

-reinstall the screws and grate

-open seacock (stated here for those of us who needed step 1)


I don't know if this makes any sense, (I didn't get home from work until 3 am last night), and it may have no merit at all. I am sure there is a flaw in my thinking somewhere.

Going forward, I think I will build the cockpit sole for the drains I have now. If I find these to be unsuitable, I'll at least have the recess if I want to try the drains that are on Glissano.

Please let me know what you think.

Joe

P.S. Sorry to hijack this thread. I would also love to hear about Figment's deck recore. I presume the work is now also centered around the cockpit.

Cockpit core work will need to wait for another year. I need to get this F'ing thing launched. At this rate, Tim's going to have the Daysailor floating before I hear the splash.

However, I dare say that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Today we laid the dynel on the coachroof. The plan is to do the rest of the decks on Saturday. The hot weather has been the greatest challenge lately because the resin just cooks off in the blink of an eye. Dragging my ass out of bed before sunup today made all the difference in the world.

Figment wrote:At this rate, Tim's going to have the Daysailor floating...

Technically, I already have! hehe ;<)

(If only for 20 minutes or so...)

It's amazing how long everything takes. Time keeps on slippin'...slippin'...slippin'...

The deck took two coats of paint this weekend. Holeeee Crap, it's a completely different boat. Pics tomorrow, I hope.

Figment wrote:Pics tomorrow, I hope

So, any pictures to share?

of course not. for that to happen, I'd need to pull my head out of my ass before leaving the house in the morning.

Deck is painted.
Cabin sides are 1st-coat primed.
Bootstripe is 1st-coat painted.
Most chainplates are reinstalled.
Big box of fasteners should arrive monday.
New plexi for the deadlights should be ready tuesday.

Oh, and Brownell is going to splash me thursday afternoon. ticktock ticktock.

Bottom will get painted someway somehow. Other than that, she's ready to splash. Docklines will need to be shackled to chainplates for the time being, but that's not the end of the world now is it?

In the "This Could Get Interesting" department.... I reinstalled the mast step this afternoon, and the bolts that used to be about 1/4' too long are now about 1" too short. Guess I built that part of the deck up a bit when I "reinforced" it. I should have sufficient excess shroud length to accommodate this, but I won't be surprised if the backstay comes up short.